MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025283816 · doi:10.1007/s11926-020-00896-6

New Criteria for Lupus

2020· review· en· W3025283816 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Aringer, Nicolai Leuchten, Sindhu R. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Rheumatology Reports · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRheumatologyRheumatismSystemic lupus erythematosusInternal medicinePopulationDiseasePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Classification criteria define the patient population for clinical trials and translational studies, but also influence current understanding of the disease. This review attempts to delineate the development from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1982 to the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/ACR 2019 classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). RECENT FINDINGS: The new EULAR/ACR classification criteria use antinuclear antibodies (ANA) as an entry criterion. (Non-infectious) fever is the one new criterion. All criteria items now have individual weights (from 2 to 10) and are structured in domains, within which only the highest item is counted. There is one common attribution rule, counting criteria only if there is no more likely alternative explanation. Ten points are sufficient for classification. The new criteria have reached a sensitivity of 96.1% and a specificity of 93.4%. The new EULAR/ACR 2019 classification criteria for SLE build on the previous criteria sets, adding fever only as a new criteria item. The new structure is reflective of the current diagnostic approach and has led to improved statistical performance.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0140.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.009

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Rheumatology ReportsSame topicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchFrench-language works237,207